Perhaps it's because in your religion you can be forgiven at the drop of a hat? So "hell" is something for non-believers, whatever the believer themselves has done.

I think this beautifuly sums it up.

There's always, among religious fundies, cries of "atheists are immoral! Atheists can steal, rape, kill without fear of consequences...". But in the end, religious fundies seem to be the ones that could be prone to terrible acts without fear of consequences, since all they have to do to absolve themselves is ask for forgiveness from their sky-daddy.

What was it again? "Kill them all, God will recognize His own"?

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

So if I'm following Kevin's reasoning,* the good or bad, right or wrong, even the up or down of anything in the universe (or to cut it down to a manageable scale, the human bit of it) can only be evaluated by invoking an external reference point.

Why is that, Kevin? Is it intrinsic in the ideas of 'good' or 'right' (or 'up' for that matter)? Is an external reference point needed for any logical argument, or just moral ones?

And how do you know that? By use of reason? A slight logical problem there, donchathink? (Hint: "a way a lone a last a loved a long the | riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.")

And if we were to concede the need for an external reference point, can tell us how you identify it? Does it just happen to resemble one you were immersed in since childhood, that you identified with in your adolescence and adult** life, and that you have built your social and working life around since then? Just asking.

Assuming for the sake of this discussion that deity-free reasoning has the rigour of blended jellyfish, why do those of us who don't belong to your club still manage to learn our multiplication tables (at least six times out four, anyway)?

And finally, why are we promised a long career shovelling coal after we die for (a) seeing how specious your argument is and (b) treating it accordingly?

My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?

I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.

But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell.

So in other words "atheists are hypocrites because they don't live up to Kevin Miller's straw man of what atheism/a naturalistic world view is". Gotcha. Well it's nice to know you "argue" in good faith, Kevvo. Oh wait, "Expelled", no you don't.

Shall we take it step by step:

1) "If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity"

STRAW MAN

Simply no one claims this. It is not the result of evolutionary biology, nor a scientific understanding of the universe. You have a) simply failed to understand what you have read (if you have read anything, which I sincerely doubt, you are simply regurgitating creationist tropes) and b) tiresomely misrepresented the position of your opponents (what's new Kevvo?).

Just to take a tiny example from evolutionary biology alone, what about drift? Adaptation is not the only force at work in changing allele frequencies. There are, of course, many other examples. You also ignore history, your argument relies on everything springing to life (be it an organism or an argument) on equal footing ex nihilo. You are ignoring the ratcheting effect of history/development/evolution, again for either an argument, a process or an organism.

There is also an unstated claim here, i.e. your assumption that a natural process (or set of processes) is insufficient to produce (or examine) the universe. That is, in itself a very bold (and unsubstantiated and refuted) claim. What you fail to understand is the burden of proof here rests on you and your fellow theists/supernaturalists. You are claiming that some form of supernatural process is at work in the universe, more than that, that a supernatural process is required to understand and examine the universe.

Without evidence, and let's be exceedingly blunt, you have no evidence, why should anyone take such a claim seriously? You forget that you are not arguing against people who claim the polar opposite (i.e. that nothing other than natural processes can be at work as a matter of faith or belief, but that no evidence that any such supernatural processes are at work has yet been discovered, and until it is, we can only work with what we have evidence for. Forgive me if I doubt you can grasp the distinction). Your misrepresentations of other people's arguments are not binding on them. Your lack of knowledge and understanding do not constitute evidence. Sorry.

There's also more than a shred of "the argument from personal incredulity" underpinning your straw man here. More of that later.

2) "then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity"

NON SEQUITUR AND DERIVED FROM IGNORANCE

This does not follow from the above. It relies on the (erroneous) assumption that simple processes cannot give rise to more complex ones. It simply ignores emergent phenomena, feedback, hysteresis, all of neuroscience, in fact anything we understand about the physical functions of cognition, stimulus and response in all organisms from archea to zebras. If no emergent phenomena existed, if we couldn't (for example) demonstrate greater complexity emerging from simple systems, then you *might* have a point, but we can, so you don't.

It's also a derivative of your "How can that be? WAH!" argument from personal incredulity which underpins a lot of this drivel. Pro-tip: if you don't understand it, it doesn't follow that no one else does. Pro-tip 2: †any argument that can be refuted by the fact that water freezes is a very stupid argument. Forgive me if I cannot be bothered to explain why that is the case and why it is relevant here. Do your own homework.

3) "Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin."

NON SEQUITUR AND INCOHERENT

So because thoughts and arguments derive from natural process they are of no more "consequence" (a weasel word if I ever saw one) than some random piece of non-cognitive biology. Even if this was true, and it isn't, so what? Hint: Even you don't think with you pancreas. Since you {cough} "expand" on this below, I'll eviscerate it there.

4) "If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?"

a) Passion/feeling/emotions: We are organisms that have evolved complex, multilevel brains and endocrine systems. Our feelings and emotions "reduce" to surges of hormones and neurotransmitters etc. Your sense that there is even a coherent "self" behind your eyes somewhere is as much an illusion constructed by multiple brain processes as the orientation of the images you see is. So what? Because some cognitive process is "reduced" to other "simpler" processes it somehow robs itself of meaning? This is utterly incoherent. It doesn't even begin to follow from "natural processes made X therefore X has no more significance than Y". You are trying to argue against a welter of barely related/unrelated items and messing your pants in the process.

The fact that I get a surge of oxytocin when I hug my wife or son and that is part of a chain of neurochemical events that causes me to feel something I call "love" or "happiness" in no way invalidates that feeling. The complaint here is the erroneous one of the Romantic poets, the one that claimed that Newton explaining the rainbow robbed it of its †beauty. It's utter arse gravy. It is still more than possible to be fully human, to appreciate the superficial wonder of an emotion, to lose oneself unthinkingly in the moment whilst understanding the phenomena that underpin it and appreciating their beauty. The fact that we can attach some subjective thought to something does not invalidate that subjective thought in any sense.

b) Naive relativism: Why is my surge of oxytocin more "significant" or "of more consequence" than a surge of (to use your example) insulin. Significant in what way? Of what consequence? If I am a diabetic the extent and timing of my surge of insulin might decide whether I live or die, I'd say that was of some consequence. These weasel words you are using are dependent on context, without context one cannot ascribe priority. This is an appeal to common prejudice on your part, it's not logic, it's rhetoric, and shallow, puerile, transparent rhetoric at that. It could only convince something with the intellectual gifts of a yoghurt.

Also, when it comes to understanding the world around me I tend to use the neurons in my brain, not the Islets of Langerhans in my pancreas. I'm not sure what organs and cells you use to think with, I have my doubts they are part of the central nervous system, but you should really try to shift the foundation of your cognition from your fundament.

c) Trustworthiness of naturally derived thoughts: They're not all trustworthy.

Sorry, is this a surprise?

To paraphrase the great Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction: "Trial and error, motherfucker? Do you know it?". Ok so it isn't all trial and error (see 1) for examples of why, there's a bit more to it....understatement of the decade!) but it's an easy place to start.

If I believe I am being delicately sodomised by a purple space goat, an unpleasant thought I assure you, I can check that thought. I can match it to sensory input, I can match it to previous experience and the previous experiences of others to some extent. None of these processes are perfect, but they don't need to be. I need to achieve some level of confidence in my thoughts, practical or pragmatic certainty not absolute certainty. I feel no sensation of being sodomised by a purple space goat, I can't see any space goat in the mirror, there are no goaty noises and I'm fully dressed. Couple all that to the well documented distribution of goats in our solar system (all earth bound), their colour, their habits and the fact that it doesn't appear to be the case that a rash of purple space goat sodomy has broken out nation wide, and I can pretty confidently assume that that thought was an untrustworthy one.

The subtext here is that you are asking for something no one can provide: absolute epistemological certainty. Even faith and revelation as described in one tedious theological tract †after another (and I've read 'em) cannot deliver this. It can only deliver the appearance of this to an individual, which, I hope I don't have to point out to you, is a different thing. It could all be pixies underneath, but in the absence of any reliable evidence for it all being pixies underneath I feel confident in discounting that possibility until some evidence comes up.

And again, your whine...sorry "argument" here ignores what I have been referring to as "history".

d) Significance beyond "mere" subjectivity:

History, socialisation, culture, development, experience, these are all just words to you aren't they Kevvo? People do not spring into existence from nothing fully formed. As mentioned in 1) they have history. Even if that history is merely the accumulation of biological "accidents" (and it so isn't). As we gain a growing understanding of embryology, for example, we learn how developments in utero can have profound effects on the adult. The experiences of a young infant can, to some extent, determine the subjective preferences of the adult. What we have is a welter of disparate, sometimes conflicting, sometimes reinforcing influences from many myriad sources. This will give rise to a plethora of conflicting/reinforcing (subjective) senses and impulses. Why one specific subjective impulse or sense can be prioritised over another is a very specific question, not one uninformed by reason, but one that requires a greater understanding of the relevant, specific context of that impulse or sense. We're not a blank slate.

5) "I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view."

NON SEQUITUR AND ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Since you a) demonstrably do not understand any "atheistic point of view", and b) demonstrably have not represented any "atheistic point of view" beyond your straw man version of one, then this is self-refuting. It's the old "if you were really an atheist you'd be out raping and pillaging" argument made slightly more polite...emphasis on "sightly". It doesn't address the arguments made by atheists (and there are a variety), it seeks only to avoid any arguments by directing attention away from the argument and to the supposed characteristics of your fictional straw atheist. It is a classic argumentum ad hominem, argument at the person not the argument. Note that this is different from abuse. I and other give you abuse, not argumenta ad homines. You are a moron because your arguments are palpable horseshit, your arguments are not horseshit because you are a palpable moron. Forgive me again if I lack any faith in you grasping that distinction.

Worse than that, your "argument" (I hate to dignify it so) implies that what keeps you from "living the logical consequences of an atheistic point of view", whatever they might be, is the belief in a magic man in the sky who watches you masturbate. Sorry Kevvo, but if all that keeps you on the straight and narrow is unthinking fear of punishment...hell if you will (gosh, relevance!)...then you can keep your religion and all that goes with it. Atheism doesn't equate to, or advocate, amorality or immorality.

Your "argument" here also doesn't even slightly follow from what precedes it, and borders on incoherence. Atheism is not a world view or a system of beliefs, or a religion. It is a simple philosophical position on a specific claim or set of claims. You claim the Christian god exists, ascribe to him certain attributes, make certain claims about him. I (and others) go and look for evidence for that claim and find it isn't there. We look at the "evidence" you put up and find it to be identical to the "evidence" you reject for other deities. Hence we simply do not believe your claim to have been demonstrated. Hell*, most of the arguments you do make might lead one to some vague deism at best, they certainly apply no more concretely to your specific deity than, say, the Sikh deity.

What we find is EXACTLY the same special pleading and drivel that we find when someone claims that Thor exists (for example). The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. You adhere to the religion of your society and environment for some reason (and more power to you, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket) and reject other religions because, well, they are OTHER religions, and therefore "untrue". You can see through the transparent tissue of nonsense supporting them, perhaps, but for reasons beknownst only to you, don't see the self same problems with your own religious claims. I won't give you credit for a rational analysis of other faiths because I seriously doubt, based on your drivel, that you have even bothered to emerge from a fundamentalist basement to squint at the sunlight, let alone pursued an open minded study of world religions. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but I'll bet I'm not.

Sorry, wasn't I nice enough for you to pay attention? Hmmmm I wonder, would I be nice if you stopped lying and bullshitting (the two are not equivalent)?

So to close, in the immortal words of the prophet Mohammed: "Fuck off you toilet"**

To me, something like The God Delusion †is a really good challenge to think through what I believe in and why do I believe it, and ask myself the big questions. Essentially, if Dawkins is right, the very tool he used to form his argument, which is reason, we have absolutely no reason to trust the outcome of. So his argument has destroyed the tool he used to create the argument. So itís nonsensical.

I've heard plenty of you mock it, but no one refute it.

Your inability to read for comprehension and do your own homework is not evidence or impressive.

Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.

Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:

1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.

2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.

3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.

4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.

5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).

Chew on that for a minute or so.

So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.

Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me.

If it made sense, it wouldn't be religion.

Well, to be fair, none of that comes from the teachings of Jesus.

However, it makes infinite sense coming from those who were trying to build a church (i.e., amass political power).

It seems to me that the best avenue of attack is theological: to point out that those pushing this hellish vision are placing the Old Testament and the ramblings of Paul (as well as the ramblings falsely attributed to him) above those of Jesus Himself.

They are OTPaulians, not Christians.

Hmm...missed this earlier. Sorry 'bout that.

And I totally agree, but to be equally fair, that is the (albeit overly simplified) version that the religion of Christianity teaches. It may not be accurate given what Jesus intended, but that's kind of irrelevant at this point.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity.

BZZZZZZ!!! WRONG!

What you're doing is equating meta property results with the underlying causal process. Basically your argument here is no different than insisting that if salt is nothing but the product of sodium and chloride (or water is nothing but the product of hydrogen and oxygen or...), then the outcome couldn't be anything more than the same. Dare ya to put sodium and chloride separately on your food and try to eat it. Further, I double dog dare you to insist that sodium and chloride sitting in separate jars are the same thing as salt.

In the same way, reason (the 'taste', if you will, of using salt) is merely a tool (or in this case "spice") that is a meta product of the functioning human brain (the salt in this case). That evolution - a process of "chance and necessity" (or the sodium and chloride) happen to the process that produces the brain does not mean that the products of the brain are somehow chance and necessity.

The rest of your post is just more details on your erroneous premises and faulty conclusions.

Quote

I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.

It's perfectly easy to live out an atheistic world-view. You start with "I'm hungry" and everything you know about reality follows from there.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Your God come to you and says, "From henceforth, I require that all my worshippers eat one baby a month or they will go to Hell."

You either a) say "Pass the Ketchup" in which case you are a evil, evil man.

b) say "No" in which case you have denied your God's authority to make moral decisions on your behalf and instead are fully capable of making your own moral decisions... even without God.

c) say "God would never say something like that", in which case, there is a morality that is external to God which even He must follow. Which, again, means that you can go directly to that external morality and skip God entirely. Provided you have the strength and courage to do so.

Atheists understand that morality and ethics is based on one's culture. To a Mayan, it was perfectly acceptable to sacrifice a young woman in the Spring. The young boys competed for a chance to be sacrificed. To a citizen of Judea about 2011 years ago, slaves were perfectly acceptable and a slave could be beat almost to death. Women and children were regularly stoned to death while the entire village looked on. etc. etc. etc.

Our culture does not find any of that acceptable. Hell (copying Louis), even the Southern Baptists have taken slavery out of their charter (in 1996!!!!).

So, how can atheists be moral? Because we are smart enough to know what is acceptable in our culture.

That is why we don't need your Hell. Because we act morally and ethically because we want to, not because we are forced to.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.

Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:

1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.

2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.

3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.

4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.

5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).

Chew on that for a minute or so.

So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier †with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.

Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me.

If it made sense, it wouldn't be religion.

Well, to be fair, none of that comes from the teachings of Jesus.

However, it makes infinite sense coming from those who were trying to build a church (i.e., amass political power).

It seems to me that the best avenue of attack is theological: to point out that those pushing this hellish vision are placing the Old Testament and the ramblings of Paul (as well as the ramblings falsely attributed to him) above those of Jesus Himself.

They are OTPaulians, not Christians.

Hmm...missed this earlier. Sorry 'bout that.

And I totally agree, but to be equally fair, that is the (albeit overly simplified) version that the religion of Christianity teaches. It may not be accurate given what Jesus intended, but that's kind of irrelevant at this point.

There is no "religion of Christianity," Robin. Christianity is divided into many sects. Kevin just represents one of the most profoundly perverted ones.

My thought process: If what we refer to as reason is nothing but the product of chance + necessity, then the outcome of our reasoning process couldn't be anything more than the same--a product of chance plus necessity. Therefore, the things we refer to as thoughts and arguments are of no more consequence than than the process in our body that manufactures insulin. I'm not saying that's how I think. I just see it as the logical consequence of an atheistic point of view. Put another way: If chance + necessity are the only forces at work in the universe shaping life and everything else we see around us (another way of saying random mutation plus natural selection), you can't sneak anything else in and pretend that the thoughts in your brain are a product of anything that would give them significance beyond what you ascribe to them. So why give credence to them? Why feel passionately about them?

I guess my point is, I hear a lot of people espousing an atheistic point of view but very people actually living out the logical consequences of that point of view. Even Will Provine, who has done as good a job as any of following things through to their logical conclusions, does not seem to live according to his espoused worldview.

But I'm off topic. This thread is supposed to be about hell.

Substituting 'evolutionary' for atheist for a second...

Yes, the committed evolutionist realizes their reasoning faculties are not perfect. We suffer from optical illusions in one part of our nervous system and brain, we suffer other kinds of reasoning illusions and cognitive defects in other parts. So we don't rely on our own reasoning exclusively, we test it, ask others, etc. before proceeding. It is that simple.

And when reality doesn't abide by our previous ideas of reason, we have to abandon them and invent new ones. That is what makes quantum mechanics so hard, our intuitioins and reason are no longer valid at that scale.

Of all the versions of hell out there that I've read about, the most baffling one to me is Christianity's. It has no point.

Think about the basics of the Christian version of hell for a moment:

1) Any "sin" (this term is a little vague in and of itself depending on the sect you listen to, but in general it means any act against God's proscribed rules) gets you into to hell regardless of the relative effect here on Earth. Kill 100 billion people and destroy 3/4 of the Earth or simply lust after your neighbor's wife and your in.

2) Once in, the "punishment" (again, what this is varies between sects, but in principle it involves fire and lots of it) and your soul's torment from it is eternal. Like 1 above, it doesn't matter what "sin" you committed, all receive the same treatment and it's forever.

3) The only redemption is submission to the God demands/rules (and repentance for your "sinful" behavior) before one ever gets there; there's no option to repent once there.

4) There's no rehabilitation in hell. See 2 and 3 above.

5) Once there, your torture is available to all the saints and blessed for their viewing pleasure (yep, there's schadenfreude in heaven apparently - see Isaiah 14 and 66 for instance. Revelations has some take on this as well).

Chew on that for a minute or so.

So what's the point? In this concept, you can live a good, honest life - help grandmas at swim class, give volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to cancer research, and help your neighbors and community - and burn for eternity simply because you look upon a girl at 15 and thought she was sexy. OTOH, you can be Hitler or Stalin and "find God" on your deathbed and repent your sins, and spend the rest of eternity eating bon-bons and sipping on Courvoisier †with Jesus while waving and whistling at the damned.

Yeeeaah...it just doesn't make any sense to me.

If it made sense, it wouldn't be religion.

Well, to be fair, none of that comes from the teachings of Jesus.

However, it makes infinite sense coming from those who were trying to build a church (i.e., amass political power).

It seems to me that the best avenue of attack is theological: to point out that those pushing this hellish vision are placing the Old Testament and the ramblings of Paul (as well as the ramblings falsely attributed to him) above those of Jesus Himself.

They are OTPaulians, not Christians.

Hmm...missed this earlier. Sorry 'bout that.

And I totally agree, but to be equally fair, that is the (albeit overly simplified) version that the religion of Christianity teaches. It may not be accurate given what Jesus intended, but that's kind of irrelevant at this point.

There is no "religion of Christianity," Robin. Christianity is divided into many sects. Kevin just represents one of the most profoundly perverted ones.

He's one of the Pharisees that Jesus railed against.

I think Robin is referring to the origins of Christianity rather the current practice.

Even in the Bible there is a significant difference in what has come to be called Christianity and what Jesus called The Christ actually did, said, and the church he founded.

It's pretty obvious that Jesus' Christianity no longer exists. If you want to be exact, it should be called Jewish Christianity. That's what it was, a Christian message laid on a Jewish culture and tradition.

What we call 'Christianity' comes almost directly from Paul. In the letters that we can attribute to Paul, there seems to be some complaint and fighting between him and the stewards of Jesus' church (James, brother of Jesus, and Peter). In most cases, the people Paul is exorting his believers to ignore are James, Peter, and their disciples.

Really, the religions all categorically called Christianity, should be called Paulism.

My personal belief, with no basis in reality other than I think would have been politically prudent, is that a disciple of Paul wrote the Gospel according to John, for the specific purpose of having a gospel that could be used outside of Jewish tradition and supported Paul's own belief system instead of the 'traditional' belief systems.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Your God come to you and says, "From henceforth, I require that all my worshippers eat one baby a month or they will go to Hell."

You either a) say "Pass the Ketchup" in which case you are a evil, evil man.

Technically, if he says, "pass the ketchup", he's not being evil since by his definition (I'm sure) his god sets the rules on morality - if he's being consistent that is. He'd certainly be considered a horrible reprobate by our society's standards, but then he really shouldn't care about such things - again if he's being consistent.

Quote

So, how can atheists be moral? †Because we are smart enough to know what is acceptable in our culture.

That is why we don't need your Hell. †Because we act morally and ethically because we want to, not because we are forced to.

Yep. To elaborate on this, many psychologists and counselors note that the people we label as "good", "ethical", "moral", etc appear to have a greater ability to recognize how others will react to the "good" people's behavior/actions and are better able to plan ahead for those reactions. It seems that "good" people tend to desire other people to react favorably towards them, so they choose actions that have the greatest chance of garnering a favorable response.

Pretty straight forward If-Then social understanding if you think about it.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

And I totally agree, but to be equally fair, that is the (albeit overly simplified) version that the religion of Christianity teaches. It may not be accurate given what Jesus intended, but that's kind of irrelevant at this point.

There is no "religion of Christianity," Robin. Christianity is divided into many sects. Kevin just represents one of the most profoundly perverted ones.

He's one of the Pharisees that Jesus railed against.

Yes...I was being sloppy there. If we're being precise and all, then what I meant to say was that the majority of Christian churches hold to the Paulian version of hell that I oversimplified. I agree that some Christians recognize that Paul's version is not, however, what the bible fully teachers and thus have a more broad - and usually metaphorical - understanding of the concept.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

* and if you think that aborted fetuses go to hell, you worship a monster

Wait! I thought "God" sent unbaptised babies and aborted foetuses to Heck, which is like Hell but not as nasty. When he does this he is operating in his official capacity as "Gosh". So Gosh darns babies to Heck, whereas God damns sinners to Hell.*

Have I got this wrong?

Also, why can't I own a Welshman (not that I'd want to) and when is appropriate to ask a woman if she is menstruating in a church? These are important, serious questions. {Serious Face}

Louis

*But he loves you! {Two thumbs up + Cheesy grin}

Edited to add (because I can): I will be bringing in my favourite expletive of the year should Kevvo act the tit any further. That expletive is "Dead Jew on a stick!". Just so y'alls is forewarned.

I think Robin is referring to the origins of Christianity rather the current practice.

Thanks Ogre and nice summary. To be fair though, JAM's point is well-taken. I was being sloppy in that my overly simplified summary of Christian hell represents what most Christian institutions teach and what most sects hold to, if only in a vague way.

But there is no "religion of Christian" and in some respects, there never was, so I was really incorrect in phrasing it that way. The Christian groups that sprang up in the first and second centuries were VERY diverse and many got out shouted or simply destroyed as heretical.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis